Get the latest
INFORMATION here
Can You Help?
Did you, or are you now
fighting to stop a pit in
your area?
Summary of the October 07, 2005 letter
written by Valley Voices Lawyer to the MNR, MOE and MMAH
Valley Voices Lawyer, Virginia MacLean Q.C., wrote a joint letter to the Deputy-Ministers of the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing October 7. Copies of the letter were sent to the members of A/H Council.
The letter asks the Ministries to coordinate action and to cooperate and to provide direction and guidance on process and law to A/H Council.
The letter includes the following points:
THE PLANNING ACT:
1. Many residential property severances were granted in the vicinity of the proposed pit. A/H’s official plan has not been followed in granting severances along Turk Road.
The Official Plan: a. Restricts non-farm residential severances;
b. Requires that former solid waste landfills be identified and zoned in a holding zone classification. If no site related environmental information is available then lands within 500 metres of the site must be identified as a waste disposal assessment area for study purposes. Severances have occurred within this zone. The impact of the Turk Road dump site on near-by severed lots is unknown. All drinking water is from wells.LICENCE APPLICATION:
1.Near-by severed residential lots are not identified in the pit licence application.
2.There is a general prohibition on aggregate production within 30 meters and processing within 90 metres of adjoining residential properties. There is no indication that this prohibition has been addressed in the licence application.THE MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001
1.Council is discussing an agreement with SVA even though no zoning by-law has been passed. Council alleges that the in camera meetings with SVA are because the agreement being discussed is subject to solicitor-client privilege.
2.When Council moves from public to private sessions it does not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Act and fails to understand its obligations relating to fair and open public meetings. By holding in camera meetings with SVA Council appears to have fettered its discretion to make a fair decision on the rezoning application by appearing to have already made up its mind. The public process is being undermined by Council’s actions.
3.The ratepayers see no purpose in attending public meetings when Council appears to have already made up its mind to approve a rezoning. Council’s conduct can be challenged in the courts but why should the ratepayers be put to this expense?MUNICIPAL DUMP:
1.Based on a Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy request by Valley Voices, it appears that A/H does not have adequate records concerning the Turk Road waste disposal site. Haldimand Twp. held licences for and operated this site for many years.
2.MOE Provisional Certificates to the Township refer to the disposal of "heavy metals", among other wastes. There are no records identifying the exact nature of these wastes, or that the dump was properly closed, or that the dump property has been properly identified. DDT is known to be buried in the site.
3.The waste disposal site was transferred to Turk Road Severance Inc., a Turks & Caicos Islands company. That company does not exist. No licence for a foreign company to hold land in Ontario was ever obtained. Another similar name company, Turk Road Severance Ltd. did exist in the Turks & Caicos Islands but had its charter cancelled 3 years ago for failure to file returns and pay fees. As a result the dump property probably now belongs to the Province of Ontario under the jurisdiction of the office of the Public Guardian and Trustee. The government may be liable for the site. This raises questions of its ability to make decisions affecting its own land and the adjoining proposed pit lands.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. Access to the pit site is proposed along Turk Road and an extension over a “forced road” under A/H’s jurisdiction. The forced road is undeveloped. There are environmental issues about the haul route. There is no indication that A/H will undertake a full environmental assessment before it approves the forced road for a haul route, assuming it is legally possible to do so.
2. There are concerns about the impact of the proposed pit on the water table and existing wells. Nearby wells have not been identified.
3. A/H has not responded or acknowledged the concerns of residents that, based on a legal opinion, there is nothing legally stopping a pit licensee from excavating below the water table and no enforcement mechanism is available to stop such activity.
